Are you really claiming a samurai wouldn't fight back and kill a bunch of enemies that are attacking him and trying to kill him? Samurais were pretty ruthless you know.
But Vergil's suppose to be "honorable" not a ruthless killer. Besides, it's not like he'd die anyway, so that's just over kill.
Except the demon wasn't his close friend and he didn't have much respect for it so your analogy makes little sense. Samurais decapitating corpses or throwing them out like trash was not an uncommon display.
Yes, but samurai cut their heads off and properly bury their bodies, not kick them in the air and use them as punching bags. Even so, punching a dead corpse is still dishonorable regardless.
But Vergil did know he was defeated. He even admits he's defeated and falls into Hell. Honor and foolishness aren't exactly mutually exclusive.
He didn't admit defeat. He just said He was staying. He didn't say he was defeated. He died foolishly because he was stubborn to not admit his defeat like this code of the samurai he was apparently living by. A samurai would be so shamed by defeat, that he would kill himself honorably. Vergil fell from a cliff, which would be the same as honor to a point, but did he die from that cliff fall? No.
It was an exception and this hardly negates his entire code. It's like saying Batman doesn't have a code against guns because he used one to kill Darkseid once.
That compromises Batman's honor then. The fact he used a gun completely tarnished that honor. Honor in samurai usually dictates absolutely no guns no matter what.
Seriously, Vergil had a specific line that addressed his code when he did it. Even if you think it does completely compromise it, it's not nearly as bad as him running around with a rifle shooting people in the back.
The same way he did in DMC3?
So? It's still against this so called honor of his. Plus DmC only used that rifle once. Now you're just making up stuff.
I'm not even saying Vergil's actions in DmC were ethically wrong even though I think they were.
If they weren't ethinically wrong, then why are you complaining about him killing a demon woman and her demon child? It was was obviously going to come after Dante and was shooting it now stopped that attack, and put step forward in getting Mundus to be reckless.
But Sparda doesn't have white hair in DmC. He very clearly has black hair in the flashbacks of him and the paintings. Oh yes, a Fedora is such an amazing disguise when you're standing next to a widely known terrorist. I'm not saying he should have been kicking ass left and right, but if his pretense for not doing so was "I don't want to get found out" it's extremely flimsy.
Like I said, Vergil was only interested in his plan. He needed Dante, but wasn't going to compromise everything he's worked for so quickly. He'd find a counter action to help Dante with out revealing himself to Mundus.
The entire thing makes Vergil seem like he never loved Dante at all though. He and Dante both shared the same views that humans needed to be protected and he didn't even attempt a rational discussion before immediately resorting to trying to muder him.
Dante and Vergil did not share the same goals. Dante wanted humans to be free from an oppressor. Vergil wanted to BE the oppressor. Dante didn't talk to Vergil about this because he wanted to see more of Vergil's intentions during the Mundus battle.
You know a drug dealer doesn't really compare to a national terrorist who blows up amusement parks and destroys cities.
Uh, how is that nearly as bad? One is blatantly tricking someone and attacking them defenselessly from a safe mile away.
True. But my point still stands.
The other is defeating your opponent and testing a weapon on his corpse and another is beating your enemy in a fair fight and then trying to finish it. Samurais nor knights beat their enemies in warfare and then waited for them to get back up to fight them again.
